The Newberry herald and news. (Newberry, S.C.) 1884-1903, 1887-04-28
MARRIED HoMEN's RIGHTS.
An Important Decision by the Supreme
Court.
THE News AND COURIER BUREAU,

The News AND COURIER BUREAU, !
1Ol MAIN ST., COLUMBIA, April l0.J
The decision of the Supreme Court
filed tonight in the cause Of Ault-
man, Taylor & Co., ct al. VS.. J. n.
Rush and Eugenia J. Rush will make
a great sensation in the State and
unsettle many business transactions.
It is to the effect that married
woman cannot mortgage her separate
estate for the debt of her husband or
any other person. The decision is a
very long one and cannot be copied
tonight, but a hasty scanning of it
enables the Bureau to Furnish the
following outline:
The action was founded on two
notes given by defendant and his
wife Tor the purchase Of steam ep-
gine. These notes were secured by
a mortgage on tract of land belong
ing to the separate estate of the
wife, which mortgage was executed
by the wife, her husband joining
therein. Two defences were put up.
First, breach of contract; second, 70
liability on the part Of the wife on
the notes and mortgage, she bei3g
married woman. The master in
equity, to whom the case was referred,
reported that there was no breach
of the contract. In this report the
Circuit Judge (1udson) concurred.
The master also reported the de-
PENDANTS wife liable, both by the
terms Of the statute and because the
contract was tor the benefit Of her
separate estate. The Circuit Judge
did not concur in the last branch of
this second section of the report, but
sustained the master in the first,
holding that the liability of the wife
was fixed by the mortgage, and be
ordered a foreclosure.
The Supreme Court says: The
main question in the case is as to the
liability of the wife on her mortgage,
or rather the liability of her separate
estate for q debt contracted by her
husband, to which she was a party,
and to secure which she executed the
mortgage in question, although the
said debt was not contracted for the
benefit of her separate estate. This
brings up squarely the question
whether a married woman Can mort
gage her separate estate for a debt
not contracted for it's benefit. :. t.
The boundary Of the question is the
Constitution and the Act Of the
Legislature upon the subject of the
right Of married women" The Court
then proceeds to examine at length the
constitutional /proyisions contained
in Article IA, Section s, as follows :
The real and personal property of a
married woman held at the time of
her marriage, or that which she may
thereafter acquire either by gift,
grant inheritance, devise or other
wise, shall not be subject to levy and
sale for her husbands debts, but
shall be held as separate prop.
erty and may be bequeathed, devised
or alienated by her the same as if
she were unmarried" The provis.
ions oflaw touching upon this ques,
ton are also exhaustively discussed
and the Court decides that tie mar,
ried woman las not the right to
mortgage her separate estate for a
debt not contracted for it's benefit.
The judgment of the Supreme Court
is that the judgment of the Circuit
Court be revised and that the case
be remanded with leave to plaintiff
to apply below for judgment against
the defendant, J. n. Bush, for the
amount due on the note. Chief Jus
tlce Simpson delivered the opinion.
Justice MCGOWAN files dissenting
opinion.''
The practice of having a wife's
separate estate mo1tgaged to secure
her husbands debts has been very
prevalent in South Carolina and this
decision will upset it abruptly.